Included to submit to the clerk. Items today will appear on the july 23, 2019 supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Before the first item i make a motion to excuse vice chair stephanie. I assume we can take that without objection. Great. Mr. Clerk. Please call the first item. A hearing to consider the type21 offsale general beer, wine and Liquor License to Guss Community Market. Located at 1101 fourth street. Alu . Come on up. Good morning. You have before you the report for Guss Community Market applying for a type21 license. This would allow them to sell off sell general. There are zero letters of protest. There is one letter of support submitted this morning. Plot 295 is considered high crime area. A low saturation area. The Southern Police district has no opposition. Alcohol liaison recommends approval. Number one sales and service shallbry permitted 7 00 a. M. To 12 00 a. M. Each day. They shall monitor the area under their control to prevent loitering of any persons on the licensed premises as on the most recently certified abc 253 form. No noise audible at any nearby residence or consideration point. No wine shall be sold in bottles or containers smaller than 375milliliter. The applicant agreed to the above recommended conditions. Thank you. Is the applicant here . Hello. Morning. I am representing the applicant. By way of background, Guss Community Market took over this space and the market in this space in december last year and along with it took over the existing type 20 beer and wine license that was held by the previous market. Gus market has been operating since last december now would like to upgrade the alcohol license to type21 so it can offer customers fullservice alcohol along with its fullservice grocery market. As was indicated, the reason we need a finding of public convenience or necessity is because the district is considered high crime but it is barely over the threshold. It is about as low as the margin can be and still be high crime with 101 crimes triggering the high crime designation and there being in this. There has been no opposition or protest to the license application. Notices of application were mailed pursuant to abc to over 900 are departments within 500 feet of the market and no objections were received. They contacted the chair of the Mission Bay Citizens Advisory Committee and there were no concerns from that application. The Police Organization is supportive. We hope the Committee Makes a positive recommendation. I would be happy to answer any questions. The applicant would like to address you briefly. Bring the applicant on up. Thank you. Good morning. I am the coowner and general manager of gus market. We operated here for almost 7 months. It is a great experience. It is always nice going into a neighborhood that really appreciates the service that we are trying to provide, and having this small component to our store adds that fullservice feel, and it being a Community Market we want to over what the community wants. It is something that is requested we want to offer it to our customers. We offer it at the harrison location in a small designated section. It is focusing on justtic items our customers request. Building off that it is not a large segment of the business, but it is something that helps the fullservice basket. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Supervisor haney. Supervisor haney thank you. I want to say thank you to the owners of gus for moving to mission bay. That is one of the Biggest Challenges and demands of residents is to have a fullservice Grocery Store and all of the reviews so far from folks in the neighborhood have been very positive. They are excited you are there. We want to make sure you are successful and you are the type of business that we want to have in our community and be able to grow and be sustainable. You know, that is an area of our city that doesnt have many Grocery Stores. Also, doesnt have places for people to get these types of spirits. If they are able to shop in the community to have needs met there. This is something that is absolutely needed. I am in full support of this. As your supervisor, i am excited so far you are successful. I hope that you will be in mission bay for a very long time. I just want to appreciate you. I support this. Supervisor mandelman any members of the public to speak on this . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. With your support, i think we can direct or clerk to prepare a resolution showing this transfer will serve public convenience and necessarity. Would you like to move to forward that to the full board with a positive recommendation . One quick point of housekeeping in case i missed it. Was there a motion to excuse for both supervisors stephanie and walton . We probably should do that. Lets take care of this and we will go back. We will take that motion without objection. I will make a motion to excuse supervisor walton. We can take that without objection. Thank you. Please call the next item. Clerk item 2. Ordinance amending the police code that employers must post employees rights under the fair chance ordinance by changing enforcement from office of labor standards to Human Rights Commission and adding notice and posting requirements to inform applicants of rights and revising the right of action requirements. Good morning, bill barns on behalf of the city administrator. Fair chance, ben the box is a law on the fifth box. It limits how employers and city funded Housing Providers can ask for criminal history information to provide greatest chance every entry. Housing and employment are key factors. Last year there was new legislation to start in august to extend to admission to private colleges and universities. It has been enforced by two different city agencies. Hrc enforces it where there is a public accommodation component. These amendments would do a couple theirs. First cleanup the fair chance ordinance notice requirements to summarize workers rights under the law. Two reasons. First, we posted many different places having it easy is more helpful for employers to put it all on one poster. Second is transfer which both agencies support. Rhc is better able to enforce because the applicant doesnt have an Employment Relationship with the school. These require the colleges to notice the applicants on the applicant and the Admission Office of their rights. Same system used for Affordable Housing applicants. Notice would be required in english, spanish and chinese as well as any language spoken by 5 of the population. It will be translated. Finally hrc enforcement would aplie. Applicant would receive the right of action so the city can notify them before you sue so the City Attorney can decide whether to assist you. I am happy to take any questions you may have. I do not see any questions or comments. Thanthank you, mr. Barnes. We will hear from the public if there are any members of the public to speak. Seeing number. Public comment is now closed. We have amendments to okay. I will move that we forward this to the full board with positive recommendation and we can take that without objection. Thanks very much. Agenda item 3. The 2019 San Francisco city survey to ask about Public Safety and homelessness. Thank you. I want to thank our controller and the office for working with my office to bring this hearing forward since 1996 they implemented the survey of the San Francisco residents to assess use of City Services. The city survey is important to ensure effectiveness and quality of Public Resources from muni to parks to libraries to sidewalks understanding the every day of accessing the City Services is essential to the work that the community and period do. The charter requires the controller monitor the effectiveness of the City Services. I think we hear every day about the weighs in which City Services may be failing. Less frequently we hear from folks praising services. It is valuable to have a tool like this that looks at how different departments and services are doing and can measure that over time and give us useful data for the work that we do. Thank you very much for that work. I think we will start with emilie, the project manager for city performance. Thank you, chairman delman. Good morning. I am an project manager in the Controllers Office here to introduce the findings of the city survey as well as background which you have heard. The senior performance analyst will go into more specific service readings. One objective this year was to increase visibility and accessibility of the survey data. We want to thank chairma thank g this hearing. It was administered from late november 2018 to february 2019. The main portions of the survey ask respondents to rate a, p, c, d or f for City Services. One of the key benefits is to allow us to see how well the city is performing, which is valuable for offering evidence of the work that they do. It can drive additional thank you. Focused engagement and follow up efforts by departments. This was the 17th city survey conducted. It was originally done via mailer. Now it is through the phone with web based option to allow a greater sample we had over 2200 surveys completed. When we look at the entire sample the ratings are weighted to act for major differences between the sample and the population of San Francisco. We do try to minimize weighting. When we look at changes over the time we can see significance for differences between about 2 points. Of course that needs to be larger for district level for 7 to 8 to see those significants. Here we show the overall ratings and trends. Main results in blue and grey is 2017. You can see government has remained b minus. It has been so since 2013. Libraries and parks continue upward. Transportation infrastructure had been on upward trend since early 2010. It peaked in 2017. You will see a half letter grade decline here. You will see 311 ratings increased half a letter. They didnt change significantly. That is a factor of distribution of people responds. With safety, the ratings did increase slightly not enough to change letter grades. Here i want to direct you to the 11 by 17 handout which blows out that image with the actual attribute ratings on the bars. What we show here we love this. The difference in the ratings between 2017 and 2019. The bars in blue on the top represent positive change. The red bars on the bottom represent negative changes. We do see that there is some variation in the magnitude and direction of changes between districts. As you know, it is important to note that we aim to get a survey that objectively measures resident perceptions. These are subjective measures. A couple of key findings here. The districts have generally increased since 2009 most speaked in 2017. 8 and 10 improved this year. 2, 3, 6 have seen larger downward trends. That is a continuation for district 3. We have asked residents what are the top issues. Homelessness and housing in 2017 and 2019. Even more so in 2019 for homelessness. Minimal variation . Responses between districts. Same districts. We see district 2 and 6 say they are more concerned about homelessness and less concerned about housing. 11 and 4 are less concerned about homeless and more concerned about housing. We added a question looking at the three issues in 2017. Are the issues getting better, worse, staying the same . Threequarters of respondents said homelessness has gotten worst and half said street cleanliness is worse and half said Public Safety is worse. By Group Differences those respondents in San Francisco for more than five years are on average more likely to say each issue is getting worse than those who have lived here five years or less. I will pass it over to glennnis to walk through the specific areas. Thank you for having us. I will take you through some of the main service results. One of the main outcomes is the percent that rated a service area a or b. That is what you will see on the graphs. One of the things we ask respondents is just about overall perception of local government. You can see the ratings have increased over the long run. This is first year since approximately 2011 fewer than 50 of respondents rated local government a or b. Muni ratings increased steadily since 2009. They have dropped from b minus to c plus this year. The only increase we saw in the survey was for driver courtesy. One of the interesting things here is there were much smaller decreases in the sub attributes than in muni overall. A couple explanations that we cant really get at. Missing attributes that arent covered or because it is a Perception Survey what you are seeing the overall perception of muni is different than the individual components. The drop we see aligns with the trends in transportation scorecards for the city. Breaking down respondents. Low income respondents rate muni higher than middle and upper income respondents. Within muni ratings the largest differences are in frequency and reliability of services. Districts 4 and 7 with lowest and district 1 has the highest. The survey collects information about usage of different modes of transportation in the city. We can see public transport and that includes bart is second most commonly used. 86 of respondents used it. Low income women are most likely to use it frequently. It is high across the board. You can see the in rightgraph a continuation of the trend in the 2017 city survey, a large increase in the use of tnc. Lyft and uber and decrease in taxi usage. Library usage is climbing. Many of the highest ratings in the survey are from this area. Respondents of children are twice as likely to be users of the Library Monthly or more. Geographic differences are limited for over all library ratingses. There are some differences across the survey. Africanamerican and black and asian islanders rate it is lowest. The largest increases among racial and ethnic groups for africanamerican respondents since 2017. In the sub attributes we see differences in the cleanliness. District five and six lowest and one the highest. In ratings of internet six and 10 lowest and three and eight highest. Park ratings climbed steadily. This year all of the attribute ratings increased or stayed is same. San francisco has high usage. Only 6 said they had not used them. Half reported using parks at least once a week. We see differences by race. Africanamerican and Hispanic Women rate parks lower than women of other races or men of the same race. We also see significant geographic differences in park ratings. District 6, 10, 11 hahistorically and continue to be ratest lowest. From the rightgraph the district 10 has increased ratings the most since the last survey. That is a positive thing we are seeing. These match what we see in the quarterly Park Maintenance which show low increasing scores in the south of the city. On the sub attributes. Cleanliness does particularly well geographically. Looking at safety. Readings of the safety fell in 2017. They increased marginnally last year. If general safety during the day are higher than at night. This is particularly true for women and especially true for women of color. There is another question about safety in the transportation section. We ask people about feelings of safety on muni. We note something that correlates. African and hispanics are four times likely feeling unsafe as white women. It is a 13 to 3 difference. Feelings of the safety rare yesa lot geographically. Twothirds felt safe in the day. South and east continue to rate it lower. District 10 saw the largest increase on the graph on the right. Low but climbing. We see similar patterns in reports of feelings of safe at night. Some districts saw larger drops. Infrastructure had a dip. This is a dichotomy between utility rating water services, Sewer Services that went up or stayed the same. Those Services Rating the conditions or cleanliness of the streets saw larger decreases. We dont calculate the grade average for the two services. It would be approximately a b plus water and sewer and c plus for the streets sidewalk and street measures. Cleanliness decreased the most this year. We can see that is true across the board but we see particularly in the northern and central parts of the city there are very large decreases in respondent ratings of cleanliness of streets and sidewalks. The last service area measures awareness use and respondent use of 311 services. Among those who reported using 311 services in the past year the ratings are identical to those of 2017. The Controllers Office has always put out a report on city survey findings. For the last several we have published the results online as well. Website here is the place to find out more on the city survey and on the first child and Family Survey which was intended to comto compliment the city su. On the city core cards you can find the key government services. We will update the website with more graphics by district and other topic areas. Thank you very much for your time today. Supervisor mandelman thank you. I know it was a pain to pull this together. I asked you to do that and you did so thank you. I have a few thoughts. In some ways, and this is an observation, for me to think how these responses are in some ways as much about the populations in the different districts as the quality of services. Peoples perception of what is good and bad. It may vary by their own situation as much as what is going on in the world that is the thing to just be aware of or think about. I thought the dip in overall perception of overall government is troubling. It is a consistent increase. There had been an increase in good feelings about government coming out of the recession, probably more services, things done better. We are not in a recession. We are in better shape than we have ever been. We have a huge city budget. It is turning and peoples perception of City Services is heading back down, not there yet but in the direction where we were during the recession which is interesting for me. I was surprised by the relatively low priority that respondents gave to muni in the survey, not consistent with, you know, volume of calls, emails and communications to our office. It was interesting to me as you look there is a lot of variability across districts in what people think has gotten better or worse. There is no variability across districts in the fact peoples perception of muni overall it is the worst in every district. I dont think, you know, on a chart that shows a lot of difference teen what folks in district one, six, eight think about various things. That is the only area where the lineup is consistent across districts. One area that seems supervariable is perception of what is happening with 311. Overall the grades improved for 2017. There are many districts in which people think it is worse than it was. I dont know what to make of that. If you have thoughts about thanks that might be a thing. The infrastructure gap is also interesting. It made me wonder if we are grading on a curve because are these based on peoples numerical asments of services or are they saying i give muni a b or rate muni 80 . So they are generally being given, i i, excellent to poor as well as the letter grade. They would not be given one to five or five to one. They are levels of explanation. On 311 in the reference slides, slide 39 is the district level one actual scores. The overall change in 311 is insignificant. Maybe we could take transportation which is slide 8. I dont understand how to read it. Ho dmanaging crowding is a c. Thy been asked . What is the question there . I dont know if i remember the exact wording. What is the scale they are asked . On a letter grade. On a, b, c, d, f how do you rate munis ability to manage crowding. All of these five attributes are asked after the question how is muni doing overall. There is a much larger drop in muni overall. We are not sure if that is the fact we are not asking the right questions or Something Else going into this or it is a function of the fact this is the perception of muni overall. What are the percentages . The percentages represent the percent of respondents who rated muni overall a or b or driver courtesy a or b. In 2019, 40 of all respondents rated muni a or b. That gets you okay. That may or may not be related to the c plus . That goes into the calculation of the rating. We look at all of the ratings, number and percent of people rating a, b, c, d, f for the c plus rating. For purposes of communication it is easier to talk about the percent of people who have a positive rating. When you take everything it is like a c. Yes. You could get an f . If people really were just raging against a particular service and they were giving f or d, that would show up. Yes, the c rating is showing. If there is a curve here, it is by the respondents, not by the city . Exactly. Do you have anything to add to that . One quick thing to add that is important is usually the percent and the grade basically agree. If the distribution is different they wont. If a lot of people gave it a and f, it will show up differently. Supervisor mandelman intere. I think there are a couple of questions that come up. Let me look at this drop in muni ratings. We cant know for sure but there were Service Changes in 2018 for the twin peaks tunnel improvement project. We did see respondents in the sun set district were, and i think i have the graphic here, they were less likely to rate muni a or b. Perhaps that could be associated with changes in service. The survey was fielded in late november of 2018 to early february 2019. There could have been other functions happening. We can follow up with you with the district level ratings for transportation. Supervisor mandelman you have muni overall at the district level. Four is unhappy. I am not sure who is happy maybe one. One of our intentions over the coming months is to engage with each department to dive into the data in more detail to hopefully do some comparisons with objective data. Looking at the scorecard metrics of on time performance how does that associate. We will plan to do that for a couple of these Service Areas. You have 16 or 17years worth of data, right . Gentlemen. It seem. Yes. Looking at changes over time in each of these areas it would be interesting as well. We will be publishing a deep dive dashboard to look at district level ratings over time. For the purposes of this we focused on the last two years. Supervisor haney looking through here one of the things i was interested this is trends over time, and you know i see for example that viewed on homelessness by district most people believe that it is getting worse. Have they consistently believed it is getting worse for a long time . Not so much the difference between 2017 and 2019, but have we seen high levels of people who believe it is getting worse for many surveys in a row or how is that . I dont know if that is in one of the charts. There are a lot of great charts here. That is a good question. We only added this in 2017. We only have two points of data. We see the percent of respondents went from mid30s to over 51 saying homelessness was getting worse. We will most likely continue to ask this in city survey years to allow the longer time trending. That is the same for Public Safety and street cleanliness. That getting worse thing is newer. Yes so the top issues that San Francisco cited was only asked in 2017. We have separate questions about safety and about street cleanliness under the infrastructure so there is crosswalking between the two types of questions that we ask. Thank you. She just corrected me the question have things gotten better or worse was on the top issues in 2017. That was only asked about in 2017 and 2019. Thank you for correcting me. The top issues question. Is that a question that has been around for a while . What the top issues are . Peg stevenson director of the performance unit. Thanks for having the hearing. The survey is supposed to be about peoples lived experiences of services they use every day. A Consumer Survey streets, parks and libraries. Since most people dont experience homelessness that is not what it is about. In 2017 we asked what the top issues were in the city. Affordability, homelessness. Then we asked if it had gotten better or worse in 2019. In past years we swapped different question areas in and out for different topics in the city. It about the questionnaire to make sure people will weep it short. The Service Areas are the ones in there consistently over the whole history of the survey. Streets, parks, library, cleanliness, Public Safety. In terms of the next steps in how you work with the departments around their responses or how they address these things. How does this translate into policy change or how we do business . That is a great question. In the past we issued the city survey report and we have not done follow up engagement specifically associated with the city survey ratings. We think through some initial conversations with departments these are high level indications how the city is doing. This is not actionable. Many departments have focus surveys on city survey offyears or more frequently. This can help to tell the story. Alone it is not going to drive program changes. We would like to connect that from the city survey with certain departments, more focused survey after the next several quarters this time around. Do a lot of departments do their own surveying of different kinds . Yes, we know that the library and parks certainly do their own survey. I havent spoken with the other departments, but i know the patron surveys and user surveys do exist. Thank you for supplementing. Departments that really need closer customer focus on something people are experiencing at a more intense level have a number of Different Survey instruments. Patient satisfaction surveys, lobby comment cards at the Commission Street sides, m. T. A. Has a couple different rider passenger surveys that go on. We maintain a qualified pool of researchers to help with survey design and outreach if you need a different instrument. Intercept survey in the street, focus group about the experience of a particular set of customers. A lot of city departments have tapped that pool. A few years ago we did collection of all city departments with a Customer Relations management technique. It is pretty dated now. I mention it so you are aware this is very high level and intended to be about things the majority of the population would experience and not really about things that individual users are experiencing in more specific City Services. Then we said we will work with the departments to try to use this data more particularly. One example a few years ago we had survey on access to internet. We got back information to illuminate the Digital Divide who had access and who didnt. I think it did help drive some of the city thinking about wifi and Internet Services in the libraries. That is an example how it was used more directly in programming. Is there any kind of open ended aspect of the survey . Certain things they would like to see happen or change or is it all kind of more . It is all structured. The only exception was the open ended question we asked two years ago. In the past years we had a text box in the written survey. I am not sure how it was treated in the phone one. There is a lot of interesting comment you get back from people in those things. We did some word cloud analysis using the comment sections in past year. That was dropped off in 2015. It is challenges to respond to surveys. You have to make them short or the Response Rate drops off. We are trying to make it clean and clean and efficient. Do we have an opportunity on an ongoing basis to collect feedback or ideas . I get this is structured. Is there if i am joe citizen with an idea or feet back on something, how does that happen . Is that somehow collated or by department . What does this look like on an ongoing daytoday basis to collect this information from residents . 311 data if you are making a complaint. This survey is every other year now. For the first maybe eight years we did it every year. Then the results were not changing enough to make it worth the investment. We switched to every other. It is a good longterm trajectory. It is not really a suggestion comment mechanism. I think you probably looked at things more specifically done at the Department Level for those. Just to talk about a couple of examples i am aware of. There are required public processes that are done on so many things before they come to a board level. Any street infrastructure has a long outreach process and opportunities for comment. Citizen Advisory Boards that i am aware of at every District Police station. In general the kind of activity you are thinking of occurs in Department Level processes. We were curious when we did this a few years ago who had an electronic version. I can access that. I would be concerned it is dated. There are probably analyticals at 311. We use that data often in the analysis on departments to see where there is focus and differences. I know 311 will provide information to any Program Manager in the city who asks for it. One last thing on the proce process. I see in a lot of ways we are able to match the city survey to the census data. A major exception to that is on the api residents and it is a fairly significant gap there between the demographics of the city as it pertains to api. Is this survey like a random Telephone Survey in millpel languages. How do you explain we end up in this place where we seem to be under surveying api residents . It is a random sample in two sets of samples. Part of it is random digit dial. In the last, i believe this is the first year. It is supplemented by a cell phone sample. The random digit dial is random pacross the city. The cell phone they can use thee billing zip code. There is not a lot to do with the random sample to improve it. You dont have that information on respondents until the end of the survey. There is no way to call the right people. The ccg did as good as job as they could this year. We had to wait on age and gender. One of the things with race that is difficult. It is not superclear what the exact breakdown across the city is, and the changing racial categories in various race categories make it hard. Part of it is luck of the draw. Part of it is who has landlines and who wants to respond to the survey. Thank you. We do have Public Comment on this item. Eileen boken and anyone else that wants to speak on this item, please line up. I will be using the overhead. Coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods on my own behalf. In the controller city survey transportation is not only the lowest rated city service but the rating dropped 20 in two years. The m. T. A. Has had 20 years to prove itself. It seems to stumble repeatedly. In the past year there are allegations of harassment including sexual, a serious injury, a death in the twin peaks tunnel during correction. Additionally there has been a lrv which filled with smoke, a copy is on the overhead and you have a copy. There is a major cable supplies in the tunnel. The m. T. A. Attributed this to bad luck. They are learning from mistakes. There is the ongoing rationale that throwing more money at the problem when solve it. The slip side is the flip side is the m. T. A. Strategy to play the part of all knowing transportation professionals. If the neighbors and merchants point out the flaws they are told to put up and shut up. They want to play both sides of the fence. Mts is Enterprise Department and they receive 25 of the budget from general fund set as sizes, our money. Supervisor mandelman thank you. Next speaker. Good morning. I wanted to take a second to thank you for calling the survey and having it here and thank our colleagues for putting it together. The m. T. A. Is eager to work with you to get to the heart of the issues. We certainly a lot of this is not news. We do our own surveys and noticed the correlation with what we are finding. It is why we have been diligent about changing things around. Muni service 15 to 20 years ago doesnt cut it any more as we have seen. Our meeting forward is working to address this. In places with investments we have seen changes. To the point about bus crowding. The five fulton went from 13 crowding to 2 crowding. Thathat is incredible. We have seen rider ship overall increase in places where we have been able to implement the muni Forward Strategies and the rapid route networks. In most other place in the United States where transit ridership is declining, we have seen an increase since 2019 by 6 million rides each year. We are eager to work with yo you and your colleagues to implement the changes. The resulting in increase in ridership like in mission bay shore we seen 10,000 new riders. 8,000 around it. We know it works. We will work to change things around. We are proud of the equity strategy efforts. Supervisor mandelman any other members of the public to speak . Public comment is now closed. Is there further questions . I want to say that i am impressed by the fine work of our controller and thank you msr presentations today and with that i will move that we have this hearing heard and filed. We can take that without objection. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk are there any other items before us today . Clerk there is no further business. Supervisor mandelman then we are adjourned. Shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of San Francisco. By supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help San Francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. So where will you shop and dine in the 49 . I am the owner of this restaurant. We have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language] [ ] [speaking foreign language] [ ] [speaking foreign language] [speaking foreign language] [ ] [ ] good morning and welcome to the San Francisco county Transportation Authority for today, tuesday, july 9th, 2019 mr. Clark, please call the role. [roll call]
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.